Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV28297, Date: 2023-02-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28297    Hearing Date: February 1, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 1, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint

Moving Party: Defendants Emerge Capital Management, Inc. and Lisa Langley

Responding Party: Plaintiff Marcia Mohler

T/R:     DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO THE NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION IS OVERRULED.

DEFENDANT LANGLEY’S DEMURRER TO THE ELEVENTH, TWELFTH AND FOURTEENTH CAUSES OF ACTION IS SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

DEFENDANTS TO FILE AND SERVE ANSWERS TO THE COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

On August 30, 2022, Plaintiff sued Defendants Emerge Capital Management, Inc. and Lisa Langley, asserting fourteen causes of action for FEHA violations, breach of contract, fraud, wrongful termination, and Labor Code violations.         

ANALYSIS

A demurrer to a complaint may be taken to the whole complaint or to any of the causes of action in it.  (CCP § 430.50(a).)  A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations.  (Picton v. Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726, 732.)  The court must treat as true the complaint's material factual allegations, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.  (Id. at 732-33.)  The complaint is to be construed liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated.  (Id. at 733.)

A. Ninth Cause of Action for False Promise

Defendants demur to the ninth cause of action for false promise/intentional misrepresentation.

“The elements of promissory fraud . . . are: (1) a promise made regarding a material fact without any intention of performing it; (2) the existence of the intent not to perform at the time the promise was made; (3) intent to deceive or induce the promise to enter into a transaction; (4) reasonable reliance by the promisee; (5) nonperformance by the party making the promise; and (6) resulting damage to the promisee.” (Rossberg v. Bank of America, N.A. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1498.)

Plaintiff alleges Defendants falsely represented that she would be compensated with a base salary plus commissions, an annual discretionary bonus, an offer of equity in the company, and Emerge’s assistance in obtaining her proper licensing to receive commissions, but failed to perform those promises. Plaintiff alleges Defendants made these promises to induce Plaintiff to enter into the contract, knowing they did not intend to perform.

Defendants claim these allegations amount only to breach of contract and do not implicate an independent duty giving rise to fraud. Plaintiff has alleged Defendants made promises to induce her to enter a contract but did not intend to perform the contract. This is sufficient to state a cause of action for false promise.

Defendants’ demurrer to the ninth cause of action is OVERRULED.

B. Eleventh, Twelfth and Fourteenth Causes of Action for Whistleblower Retaliation, UCL Violations and Non-Payment of Wages